W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > October 2002

2002-09-27 telecon minutes (revised)

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 16:33:53 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021001163129.03c48d90@127.0.0.1>
To: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

[Revised to reflect Brian's comments:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0357.html ]


RDFCore WG minutes for the telecon 2002-09-27
=============================================

Time:
10:00:00 Fri Sep 27 2002 in America/New York

which is equivalent to
15:00:00 Fri Sep 27 2002 in Europe/London

Phone: +1-617-761-6200 (Zakim)#7332
irc: irc.w3.org #rdfcore

Transcript:
(file attached)

Summary of new actions:
ACTION 2002-09-27#1: bwm, summarize requirements into next iteration of
                      datatyping rationale document
ACTION 2002-09-27#2: Sergey, write up comments about changes to API 
implementation vs
                      changes to applications incurred by change to RDF 
handling of literals.

Also of importance:

The chair called for comment on the proposal to reopen, noting that several 
comments were made in support of re-opening and none were made opposing 
it.  See agendum 8.


Agenda:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0329.html


1: Allocate scribe:  Graham Klyne
    Volunteer for next week: Eric Miller


2: Roll call

Participants:
    - Aaron Swartz
    - Brian McBride (chair)
    - Daniel Brickley
    - Dan Connolly
    - Dave Beckett
    - Eric Miller
    - Frank Manola
    - Graham Klyne
    - Guha
    - Jan Grant
    - Jeremey Carroll
    - Jos De Roo
    - Mike Dean
    - Patrick Stickler
    - Sergey Melnik
    - Stephen Petschulat

Regrets:  none

Absent:
    - Frank Boumphrey
    - KWON Hyung-Jin
    - Michael Kopchenov
    - Ora Lassila
    - Pat Hayes
    - Pierre G Richard
    - Rael Dornfest
    - Ron Daniels
    - Satoshi Nakamura
    - Yoshiyuki Kitahara


3: Review Agenda: OK

4: Next telecon: 2002-10-04

5: Minutes of 2002-09-20 telecon

See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0263.html

OK


6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions

ACTION: 2002-09-06#1 bwm
get feedback to namespaces WG
see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/2002Sep/0011.html

ACTION: 2002-09-13#1 jjc
will send comments re namespace last call to appropriate group
see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0068.html
see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/2002Sep/0011.html

ACTION: 2002-09-20#2 gk
Post references to his previous actions on "assertion"
see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0267.html



7: Volunteers to review the HLINK Draft

See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Sep/0108.html

None forthcoming.


8: Semantics of untyped Literals - Next Steps

See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0313.html

NOTE It was conformed that a formal decision was made at last weeks
telecon to adopt the semantics known as untidy literals.

Our W3C staff contact, eric has concerns about the finely
balanced nature of last week's decision, and asked for it
to be reopened.  He expressed two concerns:
(1) concern with split decision, where group is responsibe to convince 
others...
(2) Schedule -- WG is overrunning -- decision is likely to extend CR period
He also suggested that if we get back to functional requirements,
we may be able to find stronger consensus.

It was confirmed that W3C process permits the WG to reopen a decision
if there is consensus to do so.

The chair called for comment on the proposal to reopen, noting that several 
comments were made in support of re-opening and none were made opposing it.


9: Rationale for Literal Semantics Decision

See:  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0251.html

There was a round-table survey of requirements as perceived by
those present.  See IRC log for details.

Brian will use this as fodder to assemble a
rationale document (requirements on datatyping, and pros and
cons of the different approaches) that will be used to support
whatever final decision we make.

ACTION 2002-09-27#1: bwm, summarize requirements into next iteration of
                      datatyping rationale document



10: Abstract Syntax for Untidy Literals

2002-09-06#4 jjc review material thus far on specifics of
rdfs:Datatype, rdfs:Literal and the abstract syntax of literals and
produce a proposal for wording in the Abs. Syntax document.

2002-09-13#8 jjc update the abstract data model in concepts doc to
reflect the pair denoting a datatype literal

It seems that there is a key issue around whether literals are named or not.

See:  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0198.html

In view of the decision to reopen the tidy/untidy decision,
a main thrust of this discussion was to find a common understanding
of what is meant by untidy literals, so we fully understand the
choice we're making.

Discussion focused on whether different literal occurrences need
some kind of label to distinguish them ("sysID"s), or whether
distinct occurrence can be determined by other means (i.e. all
occurrences are distinct).

(Point of order:  DaveB asked for a meeting extension to get a
decision on this matter.  Participants were not all able to
extend, so no extension.)

The observation was made that no one was supporting having sysID's on 
literals and that whilst no formal decision has been made, future work was 
likely to proceed on the basis of not having them.



11: possible semantic bugs concerning domain and range
Jos has asked for this on the agenda

See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0288.html

(This agendum not discussed)


12: Proposed technical changes to RDFS model theory

See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0169.html

(This agendum not discussed)


13: Frank's new assertion text
2002-08-23#7  FrankM  Propose alternative text for the concepts and abstract
                  model document to rectify concerns with conflicting use of
                  "assertion".
See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0226.html
      http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-basics/2002-08-05/Overview.htm#section-Social


--meeting closed--


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2002 15:06:34 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:21 EDT